Ex parte ONODA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 1998

08113665 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 31, 1993. According1
to the appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/851,294, filed March 12, 1992, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 37
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HIROSHI ONODA

_____________
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,6651
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 23 and 42 to 49. Appellant has
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
2
canceled claims 1 to 22, 30 and 39. Claims 33 to 38, 40 and 41
stand withdrawn. The examiner has allowed claims 24 to 29 and
claims 31 and 32. As a result of withdrawing another rejection,
the examiner has also allowed claims 42 to 45. Thus, claims 23
and 46 to 49 remain for decision on appeal.
Representative claim 23 is reproduced below:
23. A semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor substrate having a principal surface; and,
a plurality of multilayer wirings each having a length and a
width which extend along and parallel said principal surface of
said semiconductor substrate, each of said multilayer wirings
including opposite side surfaces each extending perpendicular to
said principal surface of said semiconductor substrate, said
opposite side surfaces each including recessed portions located
at spaced apart predetermined length intervals of each multilayer
wirings is decreased at each of said spaced apart predetermined
length intervals, the length of each of the recessed portions
being less than 0.5Fm;
each of said multilayer wirings including a laminate of a
first conductive low melting point layer formed of at least
aluminum and a second conductive high melting point layer.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Sliwa et al. (Sliwa) 4,847,674 Jul. 11, 1989
Okuyama 4,898,840 Feb. 06, 1990
Kumagai et al. (Kumagai) 4,941,031 Jul. 10, 1990
Amazawa et al., (Amazawa), “Selective Growth of Aluminum Using a
Novel CVD System,” IEDM, vol. 88, pp. 442-445 (1988).

Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Sliwa alone. Claims 46 to 49 stand rejected under
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
3
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon Okuyama in view of Kumagai, further in view of Amazawa.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claim 23 as being obvious
over Sliwa, we reverse this rejection generally for reasons set
forth by appellant in the briefs. The examiner’s position
essentially considers the claimed multilayer wirings to be met by
the high melting point tungsten layer 10 with sidewall portions
comprising aluminum as indicated by region 32a in the various
forms of Figure 3, 4 and 5. The examiner’s position is that the
recessed portions of the claim relate to the depicted
discontinuous sidewall portion 32a’ and the gap therebetween
identified as region 33 in Fig. 5C of Sliwa. The examiner also
takes the position that the claimed multilayer wiring as just
indicated with respect to regions 10 and 32a of Sliwa’s various
figures comprise a laminate.
We agree with the basic view of appellant that Sliwa
essentially teaches a single layer wiring structure with
sidewalls. We also agree with the appellant’s view that the
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
4
artisan would not have regarded the sidewall regions 32a as being
a laminate with respect to base or core region 10 in the various
figures of this reference to the extent such is set forth in the
independent claim 23 on appeal. Such a structural arrangement in
Sliwa is not consistent with the ordinary and artisan’s view that
a laminate structure consists of plural stacked plates or layers.
The horizontally-arranged layers in Sliwa are not laminates in
the sense of claim 23 on appeal. As such, we must reverse the
rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of Sliwa
alone.
Turning lastly to the rejection of claims 46 to 49 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in light of the collective teachings of Okuyama in
view of Kumagai, further in view of Amazawa, we sustain this
rejection. Noting first that appellant has not argued the
features of dependent claims 47 through 49, a study of Okuyama
indicates, as asserted by the examiner, that the bit lines 12 in
Figures 2 and 3 are comprised of a high melting point metal layer
and an aluminum or low melting point layer laminate. Note at
column 5, lines 8 to 11 and column 8, lines 10 to 35. Appellant
admits such as indicated at the bottom of page 6 of the principal
Brief on appeal.
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
5
As noted by the examiner, Kumagai shows that plural bit
lines are located parallel to each other and, as indicated in
Figure 1 of this reference, that contact holes 20 and 24 exist
along these lines in what appear to be extended regions. The
contact hole/extended regions in Kumagai are as claimed located
at predetermined length intervals. Obviously, to the artisan,
since both Kumagai and Okuyama relate to memory device
structures, the artisan obviously would have chosen either
approach with which to embody the contact holes. The alternative
approach is set forth in Figure 2 of Okuyama where bit lines 12
have therein in an expanded region connection holes 11.
In assessing the collective teachings of the three
references the examiner has indicated page 6 of the answer that
“it therefore follows that the conductive lines which are in the
contact holes have portions of narrower width and shorter length
(each determined by the diameter of the contact hole).” From our
reading of Okuyama, it appears that the examiner may have better
stated the position by indicating that it follows that the two
conductive lines which are around the contact holes have portions
of narrow width and shorter length. As shown in Figure 2 of
Okuyama there are two halves of the bit line 12 at each
connection hole 11, one to the right and one to the left of the
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
6
hole 11 per se. This observation alone meets the broad language
of claim 46 that there be “a plurality of narrow portions at
predetermined length intervals,” since there are two halves at
each repetitive connection hole area 11. In the context of the
normal manner in the art of making of memories in an array as
best represented by Kumagai, it would have been apparant to the
artisan that this just quoted language is met by the plural
halves at each connection hole or via, as well as along the
entire length of the bit line itself since there are plural
contact holes known in the art to exist along each bit line.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this rejection are
misplaced. That the contact hole may be filled with conductive
material is inapposite since the claim is directed only to the
levels of the wiring layer structures per se. The normal filling
of the contact hole is beyond the scope of the claims on appeal
and therefore such a teaching in the reference as relied upon is
merely an additional teaching beyond that which is required by
the claims. Appellant’s argument at the middle of page 7 of the
principal Brief on appeal relates to disclosed but unclaimed
features relating to the disclosed purpose of intentional break
off or cutting off of the low melting point conductive layer at
the regions 14 in disclosed Figure 2. Additionally, that Okuyama
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
7
appears to indicate that both laminate layers of the bit line 12
have the plural narrow portions as explained earlier of
independent claim 46 on appeal, these teachings clearly meet the
limitation of a claim that one of the recited plural layers has
such a region.
Inasmuch as the features of the dependent claims 47 through
49 are not argued by appellant and are met within the ambit of
the collective teachings of the three references relied upon, we
note particularly Amazawa’s teaching with regard to the size of
the narrow portions being less than 0.5 micrometers.
NEW REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Inasmuch as we have reversed the outstanding rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of Sliwa alone, and the
examiner has withdrawn the rejection of this claim in the answer
upon the combination of Okuyama in view of Kumagai and Amazawa
within 35 U.S.C. § 103, we hereby reinstate this rejection as it
applies to claim 23 essentially for the reasons set forth with
respect to our analysis of claim 46. Here, in the context of
Okuyama’s teachings there is clearly a laminate structure of
plural layers of the type set forth at the end of claim 23 on
appeal. Additionally, the feature of claim 23 of the recessed
portions being located at spaced apart predetermined length
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
8
intervals is also met by the reasoning we have set forth with
respect to claim 46. The plural recessed portions recited in
this claim are met with respect to our analysis regarding the two
halves of each bit line as they traverse or go around each
contact hole or via as explained earlier.
Inasmuch as the current version of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) has
been amended on December 1, 1997, to permit this panel to
institute rejections for any pending claim, including allowed
claims, we institute a new rejection of claims 42 to 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Okuyama in view of Kumagai, further in view of
Amazawa as expressed with our reasoning as previously applied to
previously rejected claims 46 to 49. Although independent claim
42 is substantially the same as independent claim 46, we note
that claim 42's language relating to the plurality of first parts
corresponds to the earlier identified regions between via holes
in Okuyama or the contact hole regions such as 20 and 24 in prior
art Figure 1 of Kumagai. The second parts as recited in
independent claim 42 comprise the actual contact hole or via
regions in the collective teachings of the three references
themselves. As disclosed the plural second parts comprise both
halves of the narrow region 14 as depicted in Figure 1 of the
disclosed invention. In a similar manner, the two halves of the
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
9
bit line 12 extending around each contact hole 11 of
representative Figure 2 of Okuyama correspond in a similar manner
to that which is claimed. Obviously in accordance with our
reasoning, the width of the second part as explained is smaller
than the width of the first part, which first part width
comprises the region between the contact holes. Additionally,
the length of the second part, that is, the length of the contact
hole regions of the collective teachings of the references is
obviously less than the length of the regions between the contact
holes.
SUMMARY
In summary, we have reversed the examiner’s rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but have affirmed a separate
rejection of claims 46 to 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Additionally, we have entered new grounds of rejection under the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b) of claims 23 and 42 to 45.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
10
37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, “A new ground of rejection shall not
be considered final for purposes of judicial review.”
Regarding any affirmed rejection, 37 CFR § 1.197(b)
provides:
(b) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing
within two months from the date of the original
decision . . . .
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of
rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 CFR § 1.197(c))
as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims
so rejected or a showing of facts relating to the
claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be reheard under
§ 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before the
Primary Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(1), in order to
preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145
with respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of the
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
11
affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution before
the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner and
this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment
or a second appeal, this case should be returned to the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences for final action on the affirmed
rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
12
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 CFR § 1.196(b)

)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Adam C. Volentine
JONES & VOLENTINE, L.L.P.
Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
13
12200 Sunrise Valley Drive
Suite 150
Reston, VA 20191